Can anyone explain this 9/11 video?

Can any debunker explain this video?

If the youtube video doesn't work here's a link.



[edit on 25-10-2009 by GrandKitaro777]

Mod Edit: BB Code.



[edit on 25/10/2009 by Mirthful Me]

I've seen this before, and BBC was questioned and they didn't have a good answer. At first they tried to lie and when confronted by it they didn't really have an answer, just tried to obfuscate. Google alex jones and BBC knowing too early building collapse he among others have stories on it.

reply to post by GrandKitaro777


The BBC read their script a little too early..

PEACE and LOVE...

After watching the video, I don't think she was standing in front of a window overlooking the WTC area as they claimed. If you watch the left hand side of the video, the images do not match up at all.

The center "window" shows the skyline from a distance, like you would see it if you really were looking out of a window.

The left "window" (left side of the screen) looks like a close up of a building.

The 2 backgrounds do not match up.

I've never heard of this before, so if it's already been proven that she wasn't standing in front of a window, or even if it's been proven that she was in front of a window, my appologies.

Also ..

I just noticed that around 55 seconds into the video .. Some billowing smoke appears over the corner of the building on the left side of the screen that I pointed out.

It seems to rise up from the building, but it also disappears off screen where the "window" panes are connected.

Ok first off my personal opinion is that there is more to the whole situation.

But being fair I can think of a reason to what happened. First remember that game telephone you would play in school, where someone would start a sentence and whisper it in the ear of someone and by time it got back to the starter the sentance had changed. So what might have happened was that a source said that it WTC 7 was looking like or may collapse, and by time the reporters got it the message had changed.

Just a theory

there is no window to the far left but a reflection of the outside view of the far right. Look at the windows on the far left and then on the far right. It is either an open window reflecting the view which i doubt because of how high they are in the building , but possible wall tiles that are reflecting the outside. As far as debunking just seems like a breakdown in communication.. BBC correspondent probably got some false info. It does seem 9-11 was not a clear cut terrorist job.

The same way that all of the mass media in the United States reported that 10 of the 11 miners in West Virginia had survived...and yet, three hours later were correcting themselves to say that 10 of the 11 had died.

The same way that CNN came to within five seconds of reporting President Bush had died after he vomited on the Japanese Prime Minister.

The same way that a car bomb was reported going off at the State Department on 9/11.

The same way that Al Gore was awarded Florida in 2000

The same way Dewey was declared President in 1948

The same way any number of news sites have run obituaries of people that are still alive

The media makes mistakes all of the time. Especially the electronic media. In their haste to scoop the competitors they dont always do the research.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


There is an exception here. Modern Steel Skyscrapers don't usually (haven't really) collapse from fire.

ITs like the news coming on and saying, we just recieved word that the Moon had a very large explosion on it. 3 hours later, the Moon has a very large explosion on it. Now the example, is extreme, but obviously the more rare the event, when one predicts such or has news about such in advance it does raise eyebrows.

Originally posted by gelatinus
there is no window to the far left but a reflection of the outside view of the far right. Look at the windows on the far left and then on the far right. It is either an open window reflecting the view which i doubt because of how high they are in the building , but possible wall tiles that are reflecting the outside. As far as debunking just seems like a breakdown in communication.. BBC correspondent probably got some false info. It does seem 9-11 was not a clear cut terrorist job.

It's deffinately not wall tiles reflecting what can be seen out of the right side window.
One - It would have to be a huge seemless tile with the reflective properties of a mirror.
Two - If it were a reflection, it would be a reflection of the building she is standing in and with the presence of the smoke would mean that her building is on fire. Highly Unlikely.

Upon further viewing, the smoke is rising from in front of the building and not from the top.

Watch the video full screen and pay attention to the left side. You can clearly see smoke in front of the building, but like I said, it seems to disappear when it reaches that divding line.

It looks to me like a zoomed in closer shot of the building in the background that she is blocking from view, but for some reason the close up has been flipped, which is why the smoke on the left image is drifting right but the smoke in the background is drifting left.

reply to post by vip867


BBC later admitted that were quoting from Reuters report. Reuters
said got their story from a local media source who report WTC 7 as
collapsing, but quickly retracted it. Story was out by then

Confusion vs conspiracy....

reply to post by talisman


No, that is not an exception. There are pages and pages of testimony from people on the scene that day, that they were sure that WTC7 was going to collapse long before it did. It wasnt a surprise to anyone.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Right, but if you look carefully, they were expecting a "partial collapse" in many cases.

So explain to me, how the news reported a full collapse as opposed to a partial one, so close to the actual time of collapse which is a very unlikely event.
go2.wordpress.com... ven.pdf

Also, it is possible to "seed" the idea to those who don't know otherwise.

Detailed it is simply a reflection off of an open window. Thats it. You are looking for something that is not there.

She was probably standing in front of a blue screen and earlier footage was being projected on it.

reply to post by talisman

So explain to me, how the news reported a full collapse as opposed to a partial one

I already did. You chose not to accept it.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


But in light of the paper I cited, the explanations your giving indicate partial collapses in many cases. Which people expect with buildings that suffer major damage.

How about this.

There are tapes of people saying'..."see that building it will be coming down soon"...
Or "its blowin"

Or "keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down *soon*"

Its one thing to suggest what your suggesting, it is quite another thing to suggest that not only did people expect a collapse, they expected the approx-correct time of collapse as well!!

That is a very different matter.

reply to post by talisman



Yeah..its easy to look back at an event and go "A-HA". Not one person said, "That building is coming down at 5:27" Soon, is not an exact estimation of an event. Soon...could be twenty minutes or six hours.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999




"That building is going to come down next"

How would anyone know, which building in such chaos is going to come down "next?"

I might as well start a thread on that very topic.




[edit on 26-10-2009 by talisman]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by talisman

 

No, that is not an exception. There are pages and pages of testimony from people on the scene that day, that they were sure that WTC7 was going to collapse long before it did. It wasnt a surprise to anyone.

But it didn't collapse, did it? It was demolished.

And there are NOT pages and pages of reports of people saying thy were sure WTC7 was going to collapse. What there are are TV recordings of fire fighters and police, who conveyed to onlookers what they had been told concerning the building being soon to be blown up.

That's a little different from your misrepresentation.